|Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (FCAFC) - pleadings - refusal in part of permission to amend pleadings in separate proceedings - appeal dismissed
|Nightingale v Blacktown City Council (NSWCA) - negligence - appellant injured when he stepped into depression in footpath - Council not liable - appeal dismissed
|Zwiersen v Field & Hall Pty Ltd (VSC) - negligence - contribution proceedings - apportionment of liability between employer and manufacturers/suppliers for contraction of mesothelioma in course of employment
|Milburn Lake Pty Ltd v Andritz Pty Ltd (VSC) - security of payments - injunction granted in relation to determination of adjudication application
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm)  FCAFC 2
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Gilmour, Perram & Beachy JJ
Pleadings - corporations - appellants appealed against refusal in part of applications to amend pleadings in separate proceedings - appellants contended exercise of primary judge’s discretion miscarried, that primary judge failed to accord procedural fairness and that primary judge erred in finding that claim under s1041E Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) liable to be struck out - ss37M & 37N Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - rr8.21(1) & 16.53 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) - held: primary judge erred in finding appellant failed to explain importance of amendments but this was a minor error not material to outcome - even if Court obliged to exercise discretion it would not have done so differently - primary judge plainly correct in conclusions - appeal dismissed.
|Nightingale v Blacktown City Council  NSWCA 423
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P; Basten, Macfarlan, Meagher & Simpson JJA
Negligence - appellant injured when he stepped into depression in footpath - appellant sued Council in negligence - trial judge dismissed claim on basis appellant failed to prove Council as “roads authority”, had “actual knowledge of “particular risk the materialisation of which resulted in the harm” - provision in s45 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) that roads authority “not liable” if the harm arose from “a failure of the authority to carry out road work, or to consider carrying out road work” - “actual knowledge” - whether majority view in North Sydney Council v Roman  NSWCA 27 correct - whether Council liable because it conducted inspections negligently - principle of restraint in relation to departure from previous authority - held: Roman should remain binding - no basis for inference that Council’s officers about whom evidence was led and with relevant knowledge for purposes of test in Roman had “actual knowledge” of relevant risk - immunity in s45 applied because failure to repair footpath caused injury - appeal dismissed.
|Zwiersen v Field & Hall Pty Ltd  VSC 16
Supreme Court of Victoria
Negligence - contribution proceedings - joint tortfeasors - plaintiff electrician claimed damages for contraction of mesothelioma in course of employment due to negligent exposure to asbestos - defendants conceded breach of duty of care - plaintiff settled claim against first., second and fourth defendants - first, third and fourth defendants sought contribution against each other pursuant to Pt IV Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) - parties’ respective responsibilities - apportionment between first defendant employer, and third and fourth defendant manufacturers/suppliers - contribution - held: in relation to culpability, third and fourth defendants, as compared to first defendant, should share more significant contribution on apportionment - first, third and fourth defendants liable for contraction of mesothelioma - liability apportioned in amounts of 20% for first defendant, 40% for third defendant and 40% for fourth defendant.
|Milburn Lake Pty Ltd v Andritz Pty Ltd  VSC 3
Supreme Court of Victoria
J Forrest J
Injunction - security of payments - parties in dispute over construction of mill - two payment claims made by plaintiff under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (the ‘Act’) - plaintiff sought injunction in relation to second adjudication determination - plaintiff contended adjudicator erred in determination and sought to prevent enforcement of determination - Div 2B, ss3 & 28 - ability of defendant to obtain adjudication certificate under s28Q which would enable enforcement of judgment - held: Court satisfied there was serious question to be tried - balance of convenience favoured granting to injunction on terms that money be paid into Court or agreed managed fund.